Gicqueau 1

Paulina Gicqueau

Allison Bocchino

Writing 2

10 June 2024

An Investigation Into Genre Conventions: Is Love Math or Magic?

As the Beatles once said, “All you need is love!” Right? Love is an emotion present in

every person’s life. However, this seemingly universal statement gets approached from varying

angles by different academic disciplines. Two scholars within the psychological discipline, David

M. Buss and Davis P. Schmitt, investigated how males and females mate within their article

“Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating.” They delineate the

differences between each gender’s short term and long term mating rituals whilst highlighting the

obstacles they confront along the way. On the other side of the academic spectrum, an English

researcher named Andrea Kaston Tange approaches the same subject by dissecting the Victorian

love poetry of philosopher and writer Constance Naden within "Constance Naden and the Erotics

of Evolution: Mating the Woman of Letters with the Man of Science.” In the late

eighteen-hundreds, the young female intellectual Constance Naden began testing the boundaries

of the roles a woman could play in science and love through her poetry, influenced by the rise of

Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Examining the same concept through different genre lenses

highlights the different goals and approaches each genre possesses in comprehending the human

condition, namely romantic interpersonal relationships. Psychological researchers understand the

world around them by defining the roles and characteristics of groups all while separating them

from one another. On the other hand, the analysis of an English researcher seeks to break down

the boundaries that box people’s lives in. The juxtaposition between the two scholarly fields
 Gicqueau 2

becomes prominent when comparing their compositions, particularly via the overall structure of

their scholarly articles, the complexity of the language utilized, and the wielding of evidence to

substantiate their argument.

Both disciplines aim to reflect the outcome of their research through the organization of

their papers. The structure of the psychological peer-reviewed article mirrors the strict

data-driven point of view that psychologists embrace in regards to love. The authors built the text

to include short digestible paragraphs, section titles, and subsection headers. Each new aspect of

the relationships between heterosexual couples receives an indented section, making them simple

to locate. The authors clearly define these sections as exemplified by the title “Problems Men

Must Solve When Pursuing a Long-Term Mating Strategy” which is followed by multiple

distinct subsections such as “Problem of Female Reproductive Value.”1 Their subject lines

employ clear entry-level language, reflecting the ease of reading that comes with the

organization of their paper. The overall sense of order that they infuse into this layout

foreshadows the tone of the content. Their conclusions intend to create structure in the world by

explaining love as something that places barriers between men and women. In opposition,

Tange’s work veers in the opposite direction. While each page does include different paragraphs,

that is the extent to which the paper is organized. She only includes one pagebreak to

differentiate between the introduction and the rest of the work, which can be viewed on the fifth

page. The distinction between psychology’s methodical layout and English's freeform writing

indicates the open-mindedness of the latter discipline toward structure and content. Since

structure is one of the first aspects noticed, both fields of research set their papers’ tone through

the organization of their articles. While the psychologists lean further into the rigidity of their

1
David M. Buss and David P. Schmitt, “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective
on Human Mating,” Psychological Review 100, no. 2 (04, 1993), 216.
 Gicqueau 3

quantitatively driven outcomes, evinced through clear-cut sections and headers, English

researchers support their open-ended interpretations by refusing to confine their ideas to rigid

segments.

Whether achieved subliminally or not, the wording style employed by researchers within

their scholarly articles not only affects the reception of the content but also exemplifies the

objective they aim to disseminate. Typically, professionals completing research within the

science, technology, or mathematics fields present their results with complex jargon and

convoluted conclusions. Therefore, those outside the group frequently do not possess the

technical skills necessary to process the subject matter. However, Buss and Schmitt aim to

disperse their findings to the general public through comprehensible diction. For example, they

state, “The sex difference, however, is consistent across all 37 societies, and in no society do men

prefer older women on average nor do they mate with older women on average” in response to

one of their hypotheses surrounding female reproductive potential within long-term

relationships.2 This example reflects the legibility of the writing amongst the whole text:

sentences contain straightforward takeaways. Their phrasing includes no additional flourishes

while maintaining clear-cut, sterile language. Just as their paper’s organized structure reflects

their dispassionate tone, so do their words. On the contrary, Tange’s analysis of Naden’s poetry,

while conserving the readability of the information, assumes passionate diction. She summarizes,

“Naden is a writer and, by implication, posits a reader whose facility with both science and

poetics will indeed be an evolutionary step toward respecting women’s intellect.” 3 Traditionally,

the discipline of English studies the formation of the language through writing and reading. In

2
Buss and Schmitt, “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating,”
218.
3
Andrea Kaston Tange, “Constance Naden and the Erotics of Evolution: Mating the Woman of
Letters with the Man of Science,” Nineteenth-Century Literature 61, no. 2 (2006), 214.
 Gicqueau 4

that same vein, this quotation presents an emphasis on phrasing and diction, mirroring the

importance of impassioned language; Tange urges the language itself to be pondered and

questioned. The juxtaposition between the choice of wording within psychology and English

unveils the diverse objectives within their respective explorations of romantic relationships. Both

fields edit their phrasing to match the goals within their work. Psychology scholars narrow the

outpouring of emotion within their paragraphs to match the narrow-minded interpretations their

research presents. Such conclusions lead to limits being placed on groups, diminishing their

defined opportunities and capabilities. However, an English scholar edits their content to

correspond with their pondering of abstract themes and emotional implications; these actions

achieve an overall rebelling against the constraints on individuals.

After the researchers ascertain the tone of their papers through their organization and

verbiage, they must decide on the methods with which they present their evidence. In accordance

with the standard in scientific research, Buss and Schmitt approach their examination of love

with quantitative tools. The outcomes of the studies are presented with explicit numerical results:

“The sex differences are highly significant (p < .001) at each time period less than 5 years (7 =

0.46 to 1.21, mean 7 = 1.00).” 4 Using statistical inferences, the authors appeal to logic and

numbers, further solidifying their claims in the minds of those examining them. Oftentimes, the

authors partner these quantitative values with a visual representation. They employ a wide array

of graphs and charts since many people fail to locate trends between digits on a page.

4
Buss and Schmitt, “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating,”
212.
 Gicqueau 5

While these numbers and graphical representations assist the scientists in explaining the

phenomena around them, their very nature is finite. By utilizing them, they place limits on the

subjects they describe, setting strict boundaries for what applies to one group and what applies to

another. As a result, a gap widens between the two—between the capacities and characteristics of

men and women engaging in romance. Tange, the English scholar, addresses the same topic by

drawing on opinions from critics within the field and from the wording of the poet. In Naden’s

poem titled “Scientific Wooing” Tange analyzes certain lines, explaining, “While he seems to

think that Q.E.D. lends gravity to the demonstration of a maiden’s acceptance of a marriage

proposal, the phrase’s rhyme with “random” undermines the young man’s “rigorous Logic” by

implying that there is no real proof accomplished.” 5 She begins by presenting and refuting the

conclusion of another scholar, arguing the validity of her understanding of the text. She supports

her statements with quotations and explications of the poem’s subtext. Ultimately, her

conclusions surrounding these Victorian love poems hinge on her interpretations, provided she

presents relevant textual evidence. In this regard, research within the English discipline leaves

space for the reader to weigh the reasoning of the author against their own, just as Tange did with

her peers’ deductions. The ideas Tange introduces are not set in stone. Instead they attempt to

circumvent the rigidity of other disciplines by inviting revisions. This allows for looser

5
Tange, “Erotics of Evolution,” 217.
 Gicqueau 6

conclusions that do not place confines on human behavior. Psychological researchers define

distinctions amongst groups while English researchers seek to dismantle the confines which can

be put forth by those scientific scholars.

Even one of the most fundamental concepts within the human experience—love—which

is shared and experienced by all, can call attention to the discrepancies between disciplines.

Scientifically supported research communities, such as psychology, interweave their

examinations of romance with a strict paper layout, clear-cut phrases, and quantitative numbers

and diagrams. Conversely, academic disciplines within the humanities, for example English,

emphasize the dissection of overarching themes and historical context to provide a loosely

structured paper filled with emotive language and room for personal interpretations of evidence.

These opposing methodologies lead to varying goals within each field. Psychologists aim to gain

societal insight by delineating the functions and traits of various groups, simultaneously dividing

them from each other. On the other hand, an English researcher aims to dismantle the confines

that constrain people's experiences by focusing their lens on broader structures and themes.

These facts are crucial to consider when participating in either of these discourse communities as

the particular aims of each sphere will analyze the same content in contrasting manners. The data

and conclusions collected from a scientific paper in comparison to a humanities paper will

greatly differ. Would scholarly research benefit from all disciplines approaching the same topic

with the same techniques, allowing for easy comparisons and takeaways? Or do these

discrepancies enrich research by providing each field with diversity and idiosyncrasies?
 Gicqueau 7

Bibliography

Buss, David M. and David P. Schmitt. "Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective
on Human Mating." Psychological Review 100, no. 2 (04, 1993): 204-232.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

Kaston Tange, Andrea. “Constance Naden and the Erotics of Evolution: Mating the Woman of
Letters with the Man of Science.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 61, no. 2 (2006):
200–240. https://doi.org/10.1525/ncl.2006.61.2.200.